La Sierra University gets 3-year AAA Accreditation

La Sierra University, a Seventh-day Adventist-owned educational institution in Riverside, California, received a three-year accreditation through 2016, following a vote by the Adventist Accrediting Association (AAA) board, meeting Wednesday, October 9, in Silver Spring, Maryland.

The maximum term granted for accreditation is five years, Lisa Beardsley-Hardy, director of education for the Seventh-day Adventist world church and chair of the AAA board, said. The three-year accreditation was granted following an April 2013 AAA committee’s report of “good progress” by La Sierra administrators in addressing items brought to their attention during a 2010 AAA site visit. The AAA action Wednesday also specified that another “focused visit” — the terms of which Beardsley-Hardy did not specify — would take place after the first year of the new accreditation term…

The La Sierra accreditation decision was made after “a thorough and careful deliberation,” Beardsley-Hardy said. She also expressed “optimism that they [La Sierra] will continue to make progress.”…

The accreditation issue – which includes denominational recognition by the Church and qualifies a school for certain appropriations from denominational funds – arose following a two-year controversy over La Sierra’s teachings on human origins. Beginning in 2009, critics, including some church leaders, laypersons and LSU students claimed that the school taught the theory of evolution to biology students as the explanation for the origin of life. (See Adventist Review, April 15, 2010, page 8.)

_________

This AAA accreditation is especially interesting in light of the October 13 commendation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).

The WASC commendations to La Sierra University included:

La Sierra’s constructive process to address how the curriculum presents the interface of faith and science in ways that balance the school’s faith-based commitments and responsible academic inquiry.

Consistency in adherence to university policies regarding faculty governance while also demonstrating responsible governance by the administration and board of trustees.

Implementation of creative solutions to curriculum issues in biology and general studies in ways that honor both instruction in Church doctrine and academically sound science education.

In other words, the WASC team was pleased by the creation of additional school autonomy or separation from church governance and oversight – and by LSU’s continued teaching and promotion of Darwinian evolution in its science courses.

In this light, the claims of “progress at LSU” coming from AAA would be more encouraging if specific details as to what progress has been made in support of the Seventh-day Adventist position on origins, in particular, were listed. As it currently stands, LSU still maintains ardent evolutionary biologists on its staff, to include Dr. Lee Grismer.

On a positive note, it has just come to my attention that Dr. Grismer is no longer head of the biology department, but has been replaced as the chairman of the department by Dr. John Perumal, who is supportive of the Adventist position on creation as far as I’m aware. However, LSU has hired on additional evolutionary biologists for this school year. Also, several of the professors even within the religion department favor the Darwinian perspective on origins and promote a theistic form of Darwinian evolution. These biology and religion professors do not support and do not teach their students to appreciate the Adventist perspective on origins – that all life on this planet was created during a literal 7-day creation week. Rather, they continue to teach and promote the neo-Darwinian perspective, in perhaps a bit more subtle and guarded manner, that life has existed and evolved on this planet for hundreds of millions of years.

In short, where is the lecture material from LSU that is being presented to the students in active support of the Adventist position on origins? If this is in hand, I would love to publish this evidence in favor of LSU’s progress.

Post navigation

28 thoughts on “La Sierra University gets 3-year AAA Accreditation”

This is very discouraging. I guess I was naive enough to think that the worst that would happen would be that the AAA would say that its hands are tied. I didn’t think they would give LSU encouragement. Did they provide any evidence of LSUs progress in the right direction?

Are there any other possible ways for our church leadership to deal with this problem since the AAA is not going to address it?

Since all of our colleges, at least in the U.S. and probably most of the developed world, have secular accreditation, Adventist accreditation has only one purpose, and that is to ensure that the institution is Adventist, that it is fulfilling its Adventist religious mission.

If La Sierra is Adventist, then I am the pope. La Sierra is in fact anti-Adventist. It is actively working to undermine the Adventist high view of Scripture, the Adventist hermeneutic, the Adventist and biblical view of origins, and the prophetic authority of Ellen White. It teaches a view of origins that undermines biblical faith, and leaves Sabbath observance without a credible biblical rationale. Its liberal theology department is in many ways worse than its Darwinist biology department. It promotes non-Adventist readings of the Genesis narrative, such as that the firmament is a solid metal dome, rather than the expanse of the sky. La Sierra is a cancer on the Adventist Church that needs desperately to be excised before it kills the body. And yet it gets AAA accreditation for three years? Really?

What is AAA good for? Apparently, it is useless bureaucratic fat. Every bureaucracy eventually loses sight of its purpose and becomes a technocratic Nomenklatura that exists, as a practical matter, to perpetuate itself and for no other real reason.

If this were the only “sad situation” in the church today, we could hope for some final outcome on a positive note. But it is not. Rather, it represents the major spirituality in the SDA church today. The leaders will never admit it for the obvious reasons.

They have failed miserably in their duty and obligations in administration in both secular matters and especially religious issues.

Unlike John the Baptist who said, “He must increase and I must decrease”, we now have a policy of “we must increase and truth must stand aside as we press our agenda to its final end.”

Only God can “pull the rug out from under them” and when He does, the fall will be intense and great. You know the story of Humpty Dumpty? “All the king’s horses, and all the king’s men” will not solve this problem. It has gone too far.

Larry, the credibility of the church is being undermined more and more by those who refuse to deal with clear departures from historic and affirmed SDA doctrine. In which case, more and more church members now support independent ministries with their tithe and offerings.

This is in no way ideal. But a reality because of the present situation that seems to be more and more less solvable when the problem has been basically ignored and still is as far as any dynamic action to correct the problem is concerned.

People don’t “belong” to an independent ministry, and have no official voice in doctrine or administration. So, they are not only self supporting, they are also self defining. Meaning, in the end, they can teach what ever they want and no one “demand” accountability for what the teach. As long as they substancially present and teach bible Adventism, a person may feel OK in supporting the ministry. But with the full awareness it is not an offical SDA ministry.

@Bill Sorensen: I agree Bill. And certainly anyone who may choose to support a supporting ministry of our church would hopefully only do so as long as that ministry indeed IS, and CONTINUES being a “supporting ministry” of the Church. — That being said, it appears that Adventists themselves no longer have a say in what the church does, or does not do; even though they are members in good standing and pay their T&O (including supporting the World Budget) through their local church. Case in point….. what good has it done to raise our voices to the church leadership regarding NOT accrediting LSU???? They have IGNORED our voice, and accredited LSU (in spite of our objections), who by its (LSU) actions and teachings, DO NOT support the beliefs of the church, at least in so far as Biblical creation is concerned!!! And if that SDA doctrine falls, every other doctrine falls along with it! So it certainly seems LSU is NOT working alongside of church beliefs, but now finds itself working with a power at odds with the Creator! Straight talk? YES. Truthful talk? YES!

Actually, Bill, I must admit that I think Adventists themselves have NO say in what happens in the Church or Church run institutions. The Davenport Fiasco, the firing of David Dennis, the Patricia Moleski debacle, the La Sierra embarrassment and the other Adventist institutional failures all proof that the ‘Old Boys club’ is the only group who have a say in affairs. The evidence is clear. Neither do they worry about Adventists raising their voice. To silence these voices, the ‘old boys club’ employed a PR firm and very high profile lawyers- millions are spent in these areas. Guess where the steady funds come from to keep the ‘old boys club’ in charge….

This is more than disappointing. To realize that our church’s highest level of educational governance would approve the on-going heresy and anti-scripture posture of LaSierra is cause for deep concerns. And this within the framework of the GC’s 5-year emphasis on revival and reformation!!! A few years back a book was written on “Misadventures in Stewardship” with the title, Who Watches? Who Cares? It is evident that there is also much in the field of SDA education that falls under the same category? I personally thank Educate Truth for watching and caring, for being a watchman on the walls, blowing the trumpet with a certain sound and doing what it can to bring attention to these matters. We can be assured that within the circle of SDA science professionals, eyes are on this campus and the ripples of its influence will be wide.

@David Read, I agree with you completely. Your description of the AAA is spot on! Who is on this committee? Does anyone know? It must be published somewhere. We deserve to know who is undermining our Church.

Based upon Ellen White’s writings, I do not believe in giving my tithe money to organizations other than the SDA Church. However, I too am concerned that the AAA has delined to do its job.

My greatest fear at this point is that some of our other colleges and universities will interpret this decision as an invitation to openly (and I emphasize the word “openly”) follow the example of La Sierra. This cancer will spread.

@Richard Wright: How else could it be interpreted? Everyone knows that everyone knows about La Sierra and what it has been teaching. At least since 2009, the facts have been very publicly known. And since everyone knows about this, everyone will know that AAA’s endorsement of La Sierra is an endorsement of teaching Darwinism as truth in an Adventist setting. Other colleges will rightly understand AAA’s action for exactly what it is–an endorsement of doctrinal heterodoxy in the Adventist church, and a signal that there will be no attempt to second guess what liberal faculties and administrations decide to do. Apparently, Lisa Beardsley-Hardy has decided that the group Clifford Goldstein called “Seventh-day Darwinians” are just as Adventist, and just as worthy of receiving AAA endorsement for being Adventist, as believers in a six-day creation.

All you people who’ve been chattering about how “if you’re hired by Ford, you shouldn’t be selling Chevys” can now relax. The official Seventh-day Adventist Church at its highest level of government has just made clear that the Seventh-day Adventist Church sells both Fords and Chevys. On some level, we’re supposed to believe that God created the world in six days, but colleges that ridicule that belief are colleges in good standing as Seventh-day Adventist, according to a GC agency whose only task, whose sole raison d’etre, is to certify such good standing.

@Holly Pham: No, I don’t think Southern is going down the same path. The recent Spectrum-sponsored conference was NOT on the Southern campus, it was at a hotel in Chattanooga (the Sheraton Read House–which sadly does not belong to my family). Gordon Bietz spoke at the conference, but all reports were that his talk was very positive toward Seventh-day Adventism, and defended it from criticisms of Brian McLaren. Apparently, one liberal history professor at Southern encouraged her students to attend, but it was not a Southern-sponsored event.

Maybe time to research ALL education institutions from kindergarten to beyond tertiary. The results may be a shock and embarrassment to Adventism, who have just reviewed clarified and confirmed Fundamental Belief #6.

To say that we all “know” what is taught at LSU is not really saying very much unless you, yourself, have actually sat in the classrooms, listened, took notes, asked questions, participated in group learning activities and dug deep into assigned readings. I have not, and I am not thoroughly convinced of the accuracy, sincerity and honesty of the reports of those who have. Evolution, as a theory, should be taught in all of our educational institutions, and so should creationism or the “scientific theory of intelligent design” be taught in all of our schools . . . as a theory. As a denomination we have for far too long been overly concerned about “indoctrination.” Doctrines are important, but not so important that we feel compelled to shove them down the throats of others. We compile, enunciate and codify doctrines of what we believe the Bible and/or EGW teach us about God, life, spirituality, history and many other things. But, our understanding of the Bible and EGW are in a constant state of flux. Is not one of our greatest doctrines that our Christian religious experience is to be just that, experiential and experimental, not static but dynamic? Yes, I know, we have many “old landmarks” that are the “pillars” of the church. But, it is important to remember to be continuously open to new and fresh understandings of every one of them. This is the doctrinal truth of “Present Truth.” Without it, spiritual progress wanes and we get stuck in the proverbial conservative “rut.” Conservatism and liberalism must be balanced in the Christian experience.

We can talk about it from now on. Unless we can think of something positive and constructive to deal with the situation, it has become an exercise in futility that has no final benefit.

If anyone has an idea, I am listening. Something besides “don’t pay tithe or give offerings.” This may be a viable option, but it is not likely to change anything since they get plenty of money by way of other sources.

We can encourage each other in the faith. And this is helpful, and maybe all we can do for now. At least some of us know that what is happening and continues to happen is not acceptable nor does it represent what we believe, or our historic faith. Neither can we expect our leaders to “man up” spiritually and do their duty according to the “job description”.

If an individual accepts a position in the church, they should have a commitment to do what the position requires, or, not accept the position. This is not the case. And part of the reason is this. Those who would actually do what is needful, are not asked nor given a position to act in harmony with the situation. Those in authority ask “me too, yes people” to take various positions. And if they don’t fit this description, they are not asked nor allowed to hold any office.

At any rate, it seems apparent “the church” is in a rapid decline in spirituality, and only some miracle of God will stop the snowball effect of all this apostacy.

Lets face it. Satan have a grip on the leadership of this SDA church. It is now the time in this last days of earth’s history to help one another to be firmly founded on what the bible says. You can not blame anybody. When you wakeup on the wrong side of eternity. Here is a qoute from the book “The biblical Institute” lectures on the Principal Doctrines of Seventh-Day Adventists. by Uriah Smith and James White. This is from the section title: The Messages of Revelation 14. Qoute: “The fall of Babylon is a moral fall, as is shown by Rev. 18:1-3……But this announcement, Bablon is fallen could not then be said of the heathen world, which has for ages been lost in darkness and corruption; nor of the Romish church, for that has for generations been as low as it is possible for any organization, religious or secular, to descend. It must therefore have reference to those classes who have partially come out from Romish errors, but stopped short of receiving all the light that was offered them. This is true of the great mass of Protestant sects. They ran well for a season, and had a large measure of the graces of the Holy Spirit and the blessing of God to witness to what truth they were willing to receive. But their theology is still hideously deformed by enormous errors drawn from Rome, which they refuse to abandon”. end of qoute. It has happened before, it is still happening now and it will keep on happening till the finality of time. To my view this does not exempt the SDA church. When the smoke settles and everything is said and done. It will only me or you alone. Right now or later who will stand before the Judge. To answer to what is written in the Book. Prophecy of Eze. 9. All we can do is sigh and cry, pray between the porch and the altar. Exert every effort to be included among the 144,000. As the spirit of prophecy encourages us to do. “The scary thing about this is that I hope this people and leaders realizes that who they mislead and be lost will be on their head”. Satan’s game is deception, including self deception. God help us all in this trying and shaking time.

What you have posted is correct, James. But in most cases, it is beyond the spiritual mind of most SDA church members. And because of this, few are really involved in any dynamic evaluation of the present spirituality of the SDA church.

“Unconditional election for the church” is a powerful tool that all churches use to hold members in subjection to church authority even when false doctrine is advocated.

So when Luther challenged Staupitz, his spiritual mentor, on this issue, Staupitz could only say, “I can not choose to destroy my church.” Even when he knew Luther was right. And Erasmus followed suit when he said to Luther, “Don’t compromise me with your doctrine and teaching.” He did not want anyone to know he agreed with Luther.

Many individuals wanted to see a spiritual reform in the church but were not ready to stand for truth if it required a cross to do so. When it is assumed that loyalty to the church is, ipso facto, loyalty to Christ, we will always see the result that is manifested in modern Adventism. Unity becomes the final cry and all discent is put down no matter the reason or cause.

“The temple of the Lord are we, the temple of the Lord are we” breeds apostacy. So, ignorance and superstition reign as people bow to the false god of church loyalty and abandon the bible. The situation at LSU is only the tip of the ice berg and we can expect more of the same on many more issues as they surface here and there in the church community.

” For years the church has been looking to man, and expecting much from man, but not looking to Jesus, in whom our hopes of eternal life are centered.”–Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 91-93. (1896) {Ev 191.3}

Never was a statement more descriptive of the SDA church as it is today. “The church will decide” or “The church has decided” is how many if not most view every doctrinal issue confronting the church today. In it’s final definition, it is nothing more than Roman Catholic theology. And lazy church members are more than happy to agree to this theory. But it won’t create the final bible Christian community and far more will be lost than saved who are now members of the SDA church.

I believe we are involved in a Mount Carmel experience. As this world is hurling toward the great climactic “END”, we will see more and greater attacks against the truth by the great deceiver. The prophets of Baal will become bolder and more feverish. (Remember that the prophets of Baal on Mt Carmel were much from within the nation of Israel.)

What a day of reckoning it will be when “at such a time as we think not” that great cloud approaches this world. The signs today are loud and bold. Jesus is coming. Spread the word.

“In such an hour as ye think not”, is used by EGW to show that our names will come up in judgment at a time when we are not ready because we refused to heed the warning to get ready for His coming.

So, while the actual coming of Jesus is a true biblical application of the phrase, it has a real dynamic meaning in light of the close of probation and the final judgment that preceeds this event.

As a church, we still talk about the second coming regularly. But we seldom mention the close of probation and final atonement for the true Christian community. This event is the dynamic of the SDA message and mission. If a person is not ready for the close of probation, they will not be ready for the second coming. Yet we skip this first event and its dynamic judgment by the law, and advocate grace as all you have to do is “believe” and you are ready for Jesus to come.

And this is why we have so much apostacy and liberal doctrine and teaching in the church today. A fair question may well be, “Can the SDA church become the final antichrist movement?” We must seriously consider the possibility and even the likelihood and certainty of it unless we see some real responsible spiritual movement in the leadership of our church.

God’s means of grace by way of a church has consistently abandon the truth in the end, and always been the worst opposer of God and His kingdom. Why should we conclude the SDA movement is exempt from this possiblity? This, in fact, is why we are in such a deplorable spiritual state today.

Your anti-SDA leadership rants are becoming tedious. You write here and at Advindicate as if you possess intimate knowledge and facts about La Sierra University, Dr. Wisbey and other employees, but you can’t be bothered to confirm these facts for yourself particularly when they do not support your extremist position.

For starters you continue to describe Lee Grismer as the department chair of biology. He was replaced a long time ago by John Perumal who is an ardent creationist. How could you not be aware of this unless you are too lazy to become informed about real truth regarding change on the campus? The AAA made their decision based on the changes they apparently saw and you clearly don’t have a clue about any real changes that have taken place.

Unlike the AAA you have not visited the campus and spoken in person with administrators or the biology staff.

Unlike the AAA you have not interviewed other faculty or students the vast majority of whom, by the way, have no exposure to the upper-division biology courses which you insist continue to teach atheistic origins without the slightest documentation to back up your claim. You have not sat in a single classroom lecture anywhere on campus so you have no first-hand knowledge of what is taught in biology or elsewhere on campus.

Unlike the AAA you have not observed in person the spiritual atmosphere of the campus. You simply do not know how supportive or unsupportive it is of SDA doctrines and lifestyle.

In contrast to the AAA which takes the doctrine of church unity seriously and wants to see LSU provide an SDA atmosphere, you have a clearly stated desire to bury the university and cut it off from the church. Your position could not be more impartial or compromised.

With having minimal facts about what the AAA team has learned you and others have chosen to attack and besmirch Dr. Lisa Beardsley-Hardy and hold her up to public ridicule. You have not spoken with her personally to learn of her reasoning and, of course this was not her decision alone to make. You have not taken the approach Jesus advocated and you know it.

Sadly, you have an audience that loves to hear about every misdeed in church leadership. As Ellen White warned long ago such gossip incites the passion of people and leads them down the wrong road. You are not doing God’s work when you seek to destroy member confidence in the church. The church must operate on law and order and you are challenging that in the most public and visible and effective way possible. You are undermining the very foundation of the organized church when you denounce its leaders. I encourage you to reconsider your approach to this situation.

For starters you continue to describe Lee Grismer as the department chair of biology. He was replaced a long time ago by John Perumal who is an ardent creationist.

Thank you for your balancing comments. It is indeed a step in the right direction to replace Lee Grismer with John Perumal as chairman of the department.

I think, perhaps, that some of the frustration expressed in this forum and others is that there isn’t very much transparency as to what steps have been taken by LSU to fix what was a very clear and obvious long-standing problem. It would be nice, for example, to have a published list of the lectures that LSU will present on origins in its science and even religion departments. A clear effort on the part of LSU to present the Adventist position on origins in a favorable light (as is taking place at SAU and SWAU) would be a significant step forward…

Beatrice, had it not been for David Read and others like him, LSU would still be doing “business as usual”.

It is more than obvious that church leadership will always do “business as usual” and never correct and discipline itself unless someone actually challenges their actions and demands accountability.

So, some of us appreciate what David Read and other have done, and are still doing, to inform church members of the evil duplicity of many who hold high levels of influence and authority in our schools and other areas of church leadership.

In fact, you, and others who think like you, are the very ones who not only lead the church into apostacy, but agree and support those who do.

Meaning what? Had not David Read and other demanded accountability, we can know and be certain that nothing would have been done either now or in the future. And the measures they have taken to correct the situation are commendable, but hardly adequate to solve the real issue and how deeply it is rooted not only in this situation at LSU, but the whole denomination.

And finally, why was there no “open disclosurer” in the Review or other means of communication to the whole church community concerning this evil at LSU? I’ll tell you why. The church will never admit it has done anything wrong, but when it is so blatantly obvious, will endeavor to (not correct) but modify the situation in the hopes that the problem will “be swept under the rug” and eventually ignored by the vast majority.

You are way out of line to chide David and others for their honest work in exposing LSU and other things that are destroying bible Adventism at a pace compared with the speed of the “lightenings of Ezekiel.”

Hopefully, others are learning more and more their obligations and accountability as church members concerning this and other evils allowed and endorsed in Adventism today.

@Beatrice: Beatrice, I note that you have posted here a copy of your post at ADvindicate.com.

It’s interesting that you say that John Perumal replaced Lee Grismer as department chairman “a long time ago,” but the first news of that change was your own comment at ADvindicate a couple of days ago. There was no public announcement, and no news from any of the usual sources: the Review, ANN, Spectrum, ADvindicate, or Educate Truth. When I was researching my story, there was nothing on La Sierria’s official website to indicate that the chairmanship had changed; the website was not updated to reflect the change in chairmanship until after my article was posted at ADvindicate on October 17. Am I “lazy” if I don’t telephone La Sierra every couple of months and ask if Wisbey has had a change of heart and demoted the hardened Darwinist that he promoted to department chair two years ago?? I cannot help but wonder why this change in departmental leadership was a closely held secret until AFTER my article started making the rounds and being read by Adventist opinion leaders, but some mysteries will likely remain mysterious.

It’s hardly an excuse for wrecking the Adventist faith of those who take upper division biology courses at La Sierra that most students do not take upper division biology courses. But the information that has been provided by LSU students like Louie Bishop is that even a seminar science-faith course intended for a broad non-specialized student audience–specifically the one instituted in response to the 2009 controversy over the teaching of origins–was destructive of Adventist faith; LSU religion teachers, including John Webster who (at that time) was chairman of the religion department, told students that the Adventist hermeneutic was unhelpful, and that the Genesis narrative should not be taken literally as a description of the creation.

If AAA has witnessed a change of direction at La Sierra–and I very much doubt that–then it is up to them to say what they saw, and why they voted the way they did, in connection with their vote to extend Adventist accreditation for a further three years. There is a very public controversy about La Sierra’s blatant undermining of Adventist beliefs, and if AAA is, in the face of that controversy, going to certify that LSU is fulfilling its Adventist mission and upholding its Adventist identity, then AAA must publicly explain its vote, and justify it by outlining the changes that it observed.

You say that I “have not taken the approach Jesus advocated” and I assume that by that you are referring to Matthew 18. That passage does not apply. No one at La Sierra has wronged me personally; I have no personal stake whatsoever in the matter. The issue is that LSU is publicly undermining Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, and the response to that issue needs to be public. The relevant passage is 1 Tim. 5:20: “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.” Please look at Testimonies, v. 2, pp. 14-16.

It is not my desire or goal to undermine unity in the church, but there can be no unity except on the basis of sound biblical truth. La Sierra has been sowing the seeds of a very profound disunity, as it has for a generation been training Adventist youth at an Adventist institution (AAA approved!) to lightly regard the word of God. It has been telling the Adventist youth entrusted to it that God’s claim to have created the world in six literal days and rested on the Sabbath day (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11) is unsustainable nonsense. This can only lead to disunity on the most fundamental level, as one group, raised and educated in the SDA Church, has an entirely different conception of what the Bible teaches and God requires than another group also raised and educated in the church.

Lay people are under an obligation of conscience to see that those who live off the tithe uphold the religious mission of the church. One very highly placed Adventist official has instructed us to “hold them accountable,” and he is right. In the absence of a vigilant laity, the SDA Church will lapse into corruption as did the post-apostolic Christian Church.

@Sean Pitman, I agree with the lack of transparency at LLU and virtually anywhere in our SDA system. The hiding behind closed doors is rampant, not only at LLU, but on the Conference level, Union, and even the GC. Try to ask anybody a really specific question. All you get is either nothing or another set of vague responses. Try it some time, and you will see what I mean.